Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yeah honestly, I think it would promote more tanking because you have better odds of not getting #10.

i agree with this. Currenty system: tanking, you drop down 10 spots. Your system: you possibly drop down anywhere from 1-9 spots and could still potentially get #1 pick because its a higher chance (again assuming weighted lottery). So under this system you have more incentive to tank, as it increases your odds of getting the #1 pick with little to no adverse repercussions.

Sure, but then you just limit it. Like lets say if this is the system.

You take the best team to not make the playoffs. Take their number of wins. Lets say its 88 (or the Pirates from last year).

Now you take the number of wins away from that your team was up to lets say 25. So if you won less than 63 games (or the Astros, Brewers, White Sox) you only get 25.

Now square it and divide it by 10, and round up. So for those three teams they would each get 63 entries into the lottery. The Pirates would get one. A team like lets say the braves at 79 wins would get 9 entries.

So you put all those in a list and put it on random.org. Now you probably want to do something like the NBA lottery where only the top X are picked. So in the NBA its 3, but we would have more teams so lets say 5.

So after the 5th pick its just slot. So now we have no need for a tanking committee which is subjective (you all can say its not, but it is. It's a vote of other GM's its subjective plain and simple) So yes there is a decent chance that the White Sox are rewarded, but their odds are no better than the Astros who won 15 more games.

Anyhow if you wanted to do a lottery that is a way to do it and being more than 25 games out of the playoffs does you no good at all, and there is no need for a subjective tanking committee.

Sure, but then you just limit it. Like lets say if this is the system.

You take the best team to not make the playoffs. Take their number of wins. Lets say its 88 (or the Pirates from last year).

Now you take the number of wins away from that your team was up to lets say 25. So if you won less than 63 games (or the Astros, Brewers, White Sox) you only get 25.

Now square it and divide it by 10, and round up. So for those three teams they would each get 63 entries into the lottery. The Pirates would get one. A team like lets say the braves at 79 wins would get 9 entries.

So you put all those in a list and put it on random.org. Now you probably want to do something like the NBA lottery where only the top X are picked. So in the NBA its 3, but we would have more teams so lets say 5.

So after the 5th pick its just slot. So now we have no need for a tanking committee which is subjective (you all can say its not, but it is. It's a vote of other GM's its subjective plain and simple) So yes there is a decent chance that the White Sox are rewarded, but their odds are no better than the Astros who won 15 more games.

Anyhow if you wanted to do a lottery that is a way to do it and being more than 25 games out of the playoffs does you no good at all, and there is no need for a subjective tanking committee.

I'm not saying I support a lottery, but if I did it'd be pretty simple:

Only top 5 teams for the first round get the lottery. Teams 6-30 are regular. The team with the worst record has the highest % for landing pick #1, but no guarantee they get it. But we keep the tanking rules in place. If they're accused of tanking, they still drop 10 spots.

So technically, a team could lose 46 games, get the 5th overall pick in the lottery, and drop 10 spots. So under our system they'd go from pick 1--->11 - with the new one it could go from 5--->15.

I'd say that would actually decrease tanking, because who would be dumb enough to get caught with less than 55 wins and risk potentially having a pick worse than a team that went 500?

Vic Mackey: You better figure out how much you hate me. And how you're going to deal with that. 'Cause I'm not going anywhere.

I'm not saying I support a lottery, but if I did it'd be pretty simple:

Only top 5 teams for the first round get the lottery. Teams 6-30 are regular. The team with the worst record has the highest % for landing pick #1, but no guarantee they get it. But we keep the tanking rules in place. If they're accused of tanking, they still drop 10 spots.

So technically, a team could lose 46 games, get the 5th overall pick in the lottery, and drop 10 spots. So under our system they'd go from pick 1--->11 - with the new one it could go from 5--->15.

I'd say that would actually decrease tanking, because who would be dumb enough to get caught with less than 55 wins and risk potentially having a pick worse than a team that went 500?

I don't think there's a problem in the first place, don't see why we need to alter anything. The White Sox got punished, it severely diminished his chances of competing in the near future, what else is the problem?

I don't think there's a problem in the first place, don't see why we need to alter anything. The White Sox got punished, it severely diminished his chances of competing in the near future, what else is the problem?

Also true, nothing is broken here, really no need to fix it right now.

It was just a suggestion to change the mentality of a rebuilding team. It makes it so teams won't just sit there and build only through the draft, which almost never works, and it destroys the trade market since nobody seems willing to invest in MLB talent without some huge blockbuster trade occasionally. It also makes it so people can never be mad about being accused of tanking because hey, it's just chance!

I don't think there's a problem in the first place, don't see why we need to alter anything. The White Sox got punished, it severely diminished his chances of competing in the near future, what else is the problem?

It was just a suggestion to change the mentality of a rebuilding team. It makes it so teams won't just sit there and build only through the draft, which almost never works, and it destroys the trade market since nobody seems willing to invest in MLB talent without some huge blockbuster trade occasionally. It also makes it so people can never be mad about being accused of tanking because hey, it's just chance!

It sucks, but I don't there's any way to make teams not rebuild through the draft.

On the other hand, if you think you can it, go for it, but just know the success rate is insanely low. If you look at the teams that win consistently (Myself, SF, BOS, STL, Cincy, Balt, TB off the top of my head), none of them do it. Just based off my team, I have exactly 1 player on my roster I drafted personally (Fowler), and I traded 3 or 4 1sts to move up to land him, so it's not like I sat back and waited.

Rebuilding through picks is basically the worst thing you can do. Cleveland sorta pulled it off, but you can't bank on having an obscene run of picks like they did with Price, Flores, Burke, Rodriguez, and Bearnarth.